9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is review application for the review of the order dated 20.08.2009. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since in the case of applicant itself the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.07.2007 has approved the view taken in the case of M/s Jai Hind Bottling Company (P) Ltd. & Others Vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad and others, reported in 2002 UPTC, 101 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was filed beyond time before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the ground that under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the power to condone the delay was only thirty days and not beyond it. Against the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal upheld the view of Commissioner (Appeals), against which applicant filed appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the impugned order of the Tribunal. The matter will be reconsidered by the Tribunal expeditiously." During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, Apex Court has decided the issue in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, (Supra), wherein it has been held that Commissioner (Appeal) is empowered only to condone the delay of thirty days in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (Supra) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered only to condone the delay of 30 days and not beyond that, in terms of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply. Therefore, even if it is taken that the decision of this Court is binding u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
